🚀 go-pugleaf

>> For those who feel the next millenium starts with 1-1-2000, a question:
>> Which millenium are you shortchanging>
>>     a. The 1st one (the last one?
>>     b. The current one"
>>     c. The next one?
>
>The answer is "d." -- none of the above. Or, as an alternative, it means
>"adding" -- rather than "shortchanging" -- years to the the first
>"century." The key is this: there is no way to scientifically know when
>the "first" year, century, or  millenium began.


Yes, of course there is!  You just pick one.  It's arbitrary.

>If for no other reason than the transition from Julian to Gregorian
calendars, the first day of
>the first millenium most certainly did not begin on Jan. 1 of any year
>currently observed.

That is not a true statement.  The first day of the first millenium was Jan
1, 1A.D.

>"A.D." is the abbreviation for "anno Domini," which
>means "in the year of our Lord." However, many religious scholars have
>concluded that the "A.D." era actually began 4 to 6 years in what is
>traditionally considered the "B.C." era. By definition, a century is 100
>years and a millenium 1000 years. However, if Jesus was not born in the
>year 1 A.D., then the "first century" as currently observed based on the
>"A.D." convention was over 100 years in duration--and the first millenium
>consequently was over 1,000 years in duration -- no matter whether 1000 or
>1001 A.D. is cited as the beginning of the second millenium. A millenium
>has a beginning and an end, but it is extremely questionable that the A.D.
>calendar truly began on Jan. 1, 0001. And yet, those who now insist that
>the 3rd millenium has to begin in the year 2,001 necessarily make that
>assumption.


No, sorry that's completely, utterly wrong.  True, it is very likely that
Jesus was born 3-5 years earlier than it was thought when the calendar was
set up.  But that doesn't change the calendar or the length of the centuries
or millenia.  In fact it would be stupid to change the calendar because it
would royally screw up the history books.  It's important to have a uniform
system of time.

>Therefore, proposals to start the next millenium on the first day of the
>first year of the first decade of the year 2000 have the effect of
>maintaining the American tradition of celebrating when a new century
>begins; establishing a rational basis for dealing with a religious-based
>calendar that has changed in intepretation; and recognizing overwhelming
>popular opinion in the western world about when the next millenium will
>begin.


That's just it -- If I remember correctly "turn of the century" celebration
didn't start in this country until 1900.  That hardly makes it a tradition.

>Some would suggest that the beginning of the next millenium is a purely
>mathematical or scientific issue. I would suggest that it is not. If it
>is, then what is the "scientific" first day of the week?
>Why doesn't a clock begin with the first minute of a new day being hour 1?

Uhhh...for the same reason that a baby is not a one year old until one year
has passed!
The day starts at midnight.  At 1:00 a.m. one hour has passed.  (Remember
that in a 24-hour clock (i.e. military time) midnight is 0:00.
Unfortunately our clock system was adopted before the concept of zero was
created.)

>The answer is
>that we survive unaswerable questions by conventions on what we agree to
>observe. What has been surprising to me is that in the debate over the
>beginning of the new millenium, some scientists who usually demand
>unquestionable proof are now trying to apply scientific "logic" to a
>flawed, irrational, and religious-based system for accounting of time.


It's hardly unanswerable.  It has nothing to do with logic or science --
it's simple elementary addition.
Our calendar, though not perfect, is not religious or irrational.  Just
because you don't understand how it works doesn't make it so.

>And, where are the purists when the U.S. officially changes the dates of
>official observance of the births of Washington, Lincoln, and other
>American heroes?

I don't get your drift here.

>Further, the U.S. Postal Service frequently issues
>commemorative stamps recognizing the anniversaries of important events on
>dates other than the actual date of the anniversary.


Huh?  Your point is?

>But again, this is an issue beyond science or logic. So enjoy the next
>millenium whenever you choose.


Yeah, tell that to your boss when you take the day off for Christmas in the
middle of July!  :-)